RealGM

First of Bill Russell won 11 rings in 13 seasons, and in one of his 2 lost series (finals against pettit) he got injured and only played 4 out of 6 games. He also has 5 mvps, and if they awarded dpoys and fmvps he would be the all time leader in those awards. His stats were about 15/23/4, they didn't track blocks and steals but we can guess he must have had multiple 7 blocks, 2/3 steals seasons, if you consider that he played a lot of minutes, the pace was faster, and most shots were close to the rim.

As you know he wasn't a very good scorer (at his best he scored 17/19 on average efficiency while playing 45 mpg) but he was still a decent offensive player as he was a good passer and knew how to pass as soon as he caught the rebound to push the pace and, well, he could still give you 15-20 a night, he has a couple of finals series at 23 ppg. Anyway, yeah, his offense wasn't nothing to write home about.

Defensively he was the best ever not only due to his god tier athletic gifts but also due to his iq and competitiveness, he was the king of blocking shots directly to his teammates, not jumping for pump-fakes, getting into your head, positional awarenss, things of that nature, Other than that, he won 11 out of 11 winner takes all games in his nba career (10 games seven and 1 game 5), often elevating his game.
I won't argue with you guys that his era (57-69) was as good as the modern era but here we are strictly talking impact. Furthermore, the way I look at it is that, well, for example, bob pettit battled against bill russell, who battled against wilt chamberlain, who battled against kareem, who won fmvp in 1985 and battled with guys like moses and hakeem, who battled against shaq, etc. Like, especially big men, it's not like they would look bad today, and at the end of the day, if you look at guys like wilt and kareem and don't see that they are monsters and that they would dominate today, I have no time for you. Now, Bill is a little different because his talent isn't as eyecatching as kareem and wilt, but I hope people get that that level of athleticism and iq always translates, and that no, we don't have many 6'10, 7'4" wingspan guys that run and jump and move like that. The only athletes that are comparable to him today are giannis and (younger) lebron. Also we can safely guess that today he would be bigger and have way better offensive skills. Ok let's get to the good part.

Why is he the most impactful player ever? What happened in his career (college + nba) is that, there's this team that's average, with below average defense. Bill arrives, the offense doesn't improve but the defense instantly gets to goat tier, 1st in the league with a lot of distance from the 2nd, the team becomes dominant and wins every ring. When he gets injured and misses games the team becomes average again, but when his best teammates get hurt the team remains the same. Then, when he retires, the team and the team's defense become average to below average again. This is Bill Russell's impact. Details about this:

I don't know too much about his college career, but, if you look at what happened, san francisco was a below .500 team the 3 years before he arrived, and never made in to the ncaa tournament, bill gets there and they win 2 championships out of 3, going 57-1 in the last 2 years.
He gets to the nba, the celtics are a slightly above average team with a below average defense, bill arrives, the offense doesn't improve but the defense is ranked n.1 every year of his career but one (2nd ranked), in their best 5 year defensive stretch posting a defensive rating that was 4 to 7 points lower, per 100 possessions, than the 2nd ranked defense (!!!! not 4 to 7 better than average, better than the 2nd best!!!!!), and, well, they won 11 rings out of 13. Then he retires, and the celtics don't make the playoffs and have a below average defense for a couple years. Yes they reached great heights again a few years later winning rings 1974 and 1976, but that's with the arrivals of dave cowens and jojowhite, the only remaining staple of the bill russell celtics was the great john havlicek. Bill russell missed 52 games in his career, and the celtics went 26-26 in those games. By contrast, when some of his best teammates like cousy or havlicek or heinsohn or sharman missed time, the celtics didn't skip a beat.
So I won't say that one player can make a difference between an average to below average team and defense and a goat level team and defense, but yeah, we can assume that most of the defensive impact was given by him, even tho he had good defenders in havlicek and K.C. Jones and most of the other guys were competent.
Another thing about him, he held his opposing all star centers, between 1960 and 1968, at about 3,4 points per 36 minutes below their season average (only thurmond and olajuwon rank above him) on about 5,7 ts% lower than their average (only prime mark eaton ranks above him).
Now, that's pretty difficult to argue that there has been any one player who has had more impact to a team than him. That doesn't mean he must be the goat (the era wasn't the best, some players played longer, average offensive player, a few guys look better than him if you look at their skills in a vacuum) and personally I have MJ, LBJ and KAJ above him, but still, you gotta give him credit.

probably

Isn't this barking up the wrong tree a bit? Russell is already ranked #4 on the last top 100. There will always be people hyperfocused on PPG but the majority here doesn't need convincing of Russell's greatness.

Dutchball97 wrote:Isn't this barking up the wrong tree a bit? Russell is already ranked #4 on the last top 100. There will always be people hyperfocused on PPG but the majority here doesn't need convincing of Russell's greatness.

Read the same thread on GB, after one day of respect and praise people came back to disrespect him with ridiculous takes... The level of basketball discussion is so low outside of this board.

That's why we post here.

70sFan wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Isn't this barking up the wrong tree a bit? Russell is already ranked #4 on the last top 100. There will always be people hyperfocused on PPG but the majority here doesn't need convincing of Russell's greatness.

Read the same thread on GB, after one day of respect and praise people came back to disrespect him with ridiculous takes... The level of basketball discussion is so low outside of this board.

Keep in mind who the OP is, yes?

tsherkin wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Isn't this barking up the wrong tree a bit? Russell is already ranked #4 on the last top 100. There will always be people hyperfocused on PPG but the majority here doesn't need convincing of Russell's greatness.

Read the same thread on GB, after one day of respect and praise people came back to disrespect him with ridiculous takes... The level of basketball discussion is so low outside of this board.

Keep in mind who the OP is, yes?

What?

The same as for stats, impact is also relative to era. Just as no one is probably going to ever average 50 points ever, no one is going to ever have the impact Russell had...in his era. But that doesn't make him the most impactful ever. A 9 will have a bigger impact when the league average is 6 then a 10 has in an average 8 league, but the 10 is still better.

Mazter wrote:The same as for stats, impact is also relative to era. Just as no one is probably going to ever average 50 points ever, no one is going to ever have the impact Russell had...in his era. But that doesn't make him the most impactful ever. A 9 will have a bigger impact when the league average is 6 then a 10 has in an average 8 league, but the 10 is still better.

Is that league average for star players only or what do you mean? Also, if it is for star players, why do you think so?

Mazter wrote:The same as for stats, impact is also relative to era. Just as no one is probably going to ever average 50 points ever, no one is going to ever have the impact Russell had...in his era. But that doesn't make him the most impactful ever. A 9 will have a bigger impact when the league average is 6 then a 10 has in an average 8 league, but the 10 is still better.

On the contrary, it indeed makes him the most impactful ever pretty much by definition. You can only play the opps you have and he dominated those opposing teams more than anyone else, ever. Just as Curry wouldn't be as impactful in a prior era where the 3 pointers wasn't used as much, Russell might not be as impactful in todays era but he was the most impactful when he played. It may not make him the GOAT if you discount the 60s sufficiently against Jordan's 90s or LeBron's modern day, but most impactful by definition means having the most impact.

Mazter wrote:The same as for stats, impact is also relative to era. Just as no one is probably going to ever average 50 points ever, no one is going to ever have the impact Russell had...in his era. But that doesn't make him the most impactful ever. A 9 will have a bigger impact when the league average is 6 then a 10 has in an average 8 league, but the 10 is still better.

Just like no one will ever average a triple double ever.

penbeast0 wrote:

Mazter wrote:The same as for stats, impact is also relative to era. Just as no one is probably going to ever average 50 points ever, no one is going to ever have the impact Russell had...in his era. But that doesn't make him the most impactful ever. A 9 will have a bigger impact when the league average is 6 then a 10 has in an average 8 league, but the 10 is still better.

On the contrary, it indeed makes him the most impactful ever pretty much by definition. You can only play the opps you have and he dominated those opposing teams more than anyone else, ever. Just as Curry wouldn't be as impactful in a prior era where the 3 pointers wasn't used as much, Russell might not be as impactful in todays era but he was the most impactful when he played. It may not make him the GOAT if you discount the 60s sufficiently against Jordan's 90s or LeBron's modern day, but most impactful by definition means having the most impact.

If we quantified impact in points added/saved a guy who adds 5 points in a 100 (5%) points league has more impact to winning rings than a guy who adds 5.5 points in a 112 points league (4.9%)

If that is what he meant i could agree.

Max123 wrote:Is that league average for star players only or what do you mean? Also, if it is for star players, why do you think so?

No, total league average, and it's just an example

falcolombardi wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:On the contrary, it indeed makes him the most impactful ever pretty much by definition. You can only play the opps you have and he dominated those opposing teams more than anyone else, ever. Just as Curry wouldn't be as impactful in a prior era where the 3 pointers wasn't used as much, Russell might not be as impactful in todays era but he was the most impactful when he played. It may not make him the GOAT if you discount the 60s sufficiently against Jordan's 90s or LeBron's modern day, but most impactful by definition means having the most impact.

If we quantified impact in points added/saved a guy who adds 5 points in a 100 (5%) points league has more impact to winning rings than a guy who adds 5.5 points in a 112 points league (4.9%)

If that is what he meant i could agree.

I can understand the reasoning but It all depends from which perspective you look at it. Another example (and again it's just and example) from impact on a scale of 1 to 10:
In decade X player A has an impact of 10, player B and C an impact of 9 and player D an impact of 8
In decade Y player Z has an impact of 8 and no one else has an impact higher than 5

Some people would say player A is the most impactful where others might reason it's player Z.
I'm one of those who would go for Z.

Bill Russell scoring his 10,000th point, based on the footage I found it looks like it's the poster dunk over Gus Johnson

RIP Bill, the Greatest!


Bonus - brief rookie Gus Johnson highlights from the same game:

Mazter wrote:The same as for stats, impact is also relative to era. Just as no one is probably going to ever average 50 points ever, no one is going to ever have the impact Russell had...in his era. But that doesn't make him the most impactful ever. A 9 will have a bigger impact when the league average is 6 then a 10 has in an average 8 league, but the 10 is still better.

I feel like you are doing mental gymnnastics here to try and get around what the word impact actually means.

Debatable. I think it depends whether you just value players on how they did in their own eras, or you take into account translation across other eras. Russell’s skill set would translate to high impact in any era, but I don’t think he’d have goat level impact in every era the way a few others would.

Russell played for a coach who knew exactly how to use him and acquire players who fit well with Russell.
Red Auerbach was miles ahead of the other league coaches who didn't have much of a plan. Auerbach knew that a strong defensive team with Russell as the anchor combined with a fast break/rapid pace would be a winner.
And he was correct. Auerbach's genius was not only in playing the perfect style to complement Russell, he always got the right replacements for stars who retired.
The only flaw in Auerbach's strategy was allowing Cousy to shoot too much when every other starter was a better shooter. Cousy was an especially awful shooter in the playoffs, but the Celtics overcame his gunning with strong defense and high intensity.
When other coaches put in subs they usually put in one to jack up the offense. Auerbach put in defensive-minded subs like K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders. Defense was paramount. Alex Hannum and Red Auerbach were the only other coaches in the sixties who realized the importance of team play and defense.
That's not to say the Celtics didn't have a lot of good fortune/luck during Russell's reign. But they won so often they expected to win even when they weren't the best team in the league.
The key question: would Russell have won as many titles on another club that didn't have a combination great coach/great GM like Auerbach? Probably not.
But even so with all the breaks (the Celtics won 11 our of 13 playoff series that went to the limit) it was a fantastic achievement never to be duplicated again for a number of reasons.

Johnlac1 wrote:Russell played for a coach who knew exactly how to use him and acquire players who fit well with Russell.
Red Auerbach was miles ahead of the other league coaches who didn't have much of a plan. Auerbach knew that a strong defensive team with Russell as the anchor combined with a fast break/rapid pace would be a winner.
And he was correct. Auerbach's genius was not only in playing the perfect style to complement Russell, he always got the right replacements for stars who retired.
The only flaw in Auerbach's strategy was allowing Cousy to shoot too much when every other starter was a better shooter. Cousy was an especially awful shooter in the playoffs, but the Celtics overcame his gunning with strong defense and high intensity.
When other coaches put in subs they usually put in one to jack up the offense. Auerbach put in defensive-minded subs like K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders. Defense was paramount. Alex Hannum and Red Auerbach were the only other coaches in the sixties who realized the importance of team play and defense.
That's not to say the Celtics didn't have a lot of good fortune/luck during Russell's reign. But they won so often they expected to win even when they weren't the best team in the league.
The key question: would Russell have won as many titles on another club that didn't have a combination great coach/great GM like Auerbach? Probably not.
But even so with all the breaks (the Celtics won 11 our of 13 playoff series that went to the limit) it was a fantastic achievement never to be duplicated again for a number of reasons.

Reading a few books about the topic you're giving Red way too much credit. He did not know what to do with Bill and he originally did not want Bill, Bill was a consolation prize if I can recall (I forgot what his original plan was for the off season).

You're basically making it seem like Red was by far the best coach and everyone else was trash, when Red had been in the NBA and other pro leagues for a long time before Russell showed up and he wasn't considered the best coach.

I think you are mixing up Russell and Cousy. Auerbach wanted Russell and traded an established All-Star (Ed Macauley) and the 3rd pick in the draft (Cliff Hagan) to get him because he had not been truly competitive despite his high octane offenses and needed defense. Cousy was the hometown star that the fans wanted and Red didn't, but Cousy fell to him when his franchise folded and the players Red preferred went to other teams in the dispersal draft.

I will agree that Red's coaching probably gets overrated, but his GM skills probably underrated. He may not be the GOAT coach but he might be the GOAT GM, constantly getting good depth veterans and drafting well.

penbeast0 wrote:I think you are mixing up Russell and Cousy. Auerbach wanted Russell and traded an established All-Star (Ed Macauley) and the 3rd pick in the draft (Cliff Hagan) to get him because he had not been truly competitive despite his high octane offenses and needed defense. Cousy was the hometown star that the fans wanted and Red didn't, but Cousy fell to him when his franchise folded and the players Red preferred went to other teams in the dispersal draft.

I will agree that Red's coaching probably gets overrated, but his GM skills probably underrated. He may not be the GOAT coach but he might be the GOAT GM, constantly getting good depth veterans and drafting well.

You're right I was confusing some stories I read between the early Celtics and the Russell/Chamberlain book. I was thinking of Cousy!

I skimmed the books and I did see that Red tried to bribe Wilt Chamberlain to play for a college in the Boston area so he can draft him as a territorial pick. But then again that was Wilt Chamberlain.